tv [untitled] March 12, 2012 12:00am-12:30am PDT
borden is here. ok, so those items are before you. i don't have any speaker cards to speak to the proposed continuances. president fong: any public comment? >> if you can speak directly? president fong: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: move to continue items 1, 2 a and 2b to the dates proposed. >> second. >> i think there might be public comment. >> i didn't know i needed to make out a card. president fong: would you like to speak to one of the items on the continuance? >> and you're speaking only to the proposed continuance, not to the merits of the case? >> yes. >> my name is robert coolie. i own a couple of rental houses across the street from 147
andover. my only reason for appearing, i don't understand the delay with this case. this thing's been going on for a year and a half. i don't -- i'm not addressing the merits, i'm not taking any sides to the actual case but i would ask that the commission hear this case and make a decision one way or the other. i fully expect that the losing party will go to the board of appeals, a further delay. in the meantime, the house looks terrible. the sidewalk is inaccessible for people in the neighborhood. they have to walk out in the street. two parking spaces are lost and the whole block doesn't look good at all. so i just would ask that the commission hear this case and decide one way or the other. thank you. president fong: thank you. any other public comment? so there was a motion and a second? >> mr. president and
commissioners, if i may respond to mr. coolie, the speaker, on the continuance of 147 andover. it was not the request of the project sponsor or staff. it was the request of the commission secretary because we had proposed joint hearing with rec. park and your calendar was going to be so unmanageable that we, that i, took the prerogative to continue cases on your would do accommodate that joint hearing. in this case, it was not the project sponsor nor was it staff that proposed this continuance. president fong: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: secretary avery, it would appear there were no other dates? before the fifth was the earliest? secretary: no, yes. the motion on the floor is to continue items 1, 2a and b to the dates proposed on the calendar on that motion.
[roll call vote was taken] secretary: thank you, commissioners, those items are continued as they have been proposed. commissioners, you are now on -- i have 30 seconds. you are on your consent calendar. the item 3 makes up the consent calendar. this week it's considered to be routine and would be acted upon by a single roll call vote of this commissioner. there would be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public or staff would so request and in that event, the matter would be removed from the consent and considered at a future hearing. we're talking about tase 2011.1283c for 4028 24th street, a case to allow a small
self-service restaurant within the 24th street noe valley neighborhood commercial district and a 40-x height and bulk district. following any public comment which would remove this item from the consent calendar, this item is before you for your consideration. president fong: is there any public comment on item no. 3? seeing none, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. secretary: commissioners, on the motion for approval of 4028 24th street, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden? commissioner miguel, commissioner moore, commissioner wu, commissioner fong] roll call vote was taken] secretary: the item was approved as proposed. you are on your regular calendar beginning with item no. 4. consideration of adoption of draft minutes from the regular meeting of january 26,
february 2, february 9 and february 16. i have no speaker cards but following any public comment on these items, any modifications and/or corrections you may have, these matters are before you for your consideration. president fong: is there any public comment? seeing none, commission miguel? commissioner miguel: i move adoption of the draft minutes of january 26, february 2, 9 and 16th. >> second. secretary: thank you, commissioners. on the motion for approval of the draft minutes of january 26, february 2, 9 and 16 -- [roll call vote was taken] [motion was passed unanimously] secretary: draft minutes have been approved. you're on item no. 5, an informational presentation on
the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study, en trip. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm john sway, staffed with the department's plan implementation group and i'm going to be joined shortly by timothy papdrao to provide a short update on the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study work going on. the area plans adopted by the commission in 2008 identified further transportation planning work to support land use change and create complete neighborhoods. shortly after the plan adoption, a team of city agencies including the planning department, san francisco municipal transportation agency and san francisco county transportation authority obtained grant funding to conduct this further work. this project, no one as en trips, has been carried out by the city team, consultants and in collaboration with community stakeholders.
the study's final report was released recently and is now available on the planning department's website and timothy pappendrao is on schedule to give the presentation and i spoke to him earlier so i know he's planning to attend and i apologize that he's not here at this time. secretary: thank you. commissioners, we will come back to item no. 5. in the interim, we'll consider item no. 6, case no. -- >> is that right? secretary: i'm sorry? item no. 6, case no. 2012.0068d for 55 jordan avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm david lindsey, department staff. case 2012.0068d is a request for
discretionary review of a project at 55 jordan avenue. the subject lot is 30 feet wide and 120 feet deep in a neighborhood of similarly sized lots. the buildings on the jordan avenue frontage of the block are almost all large, single family houses while the buildings on palm avenue, on the palm avenue frontage of the block are a mix of single family houses, two-unit buildings and small apartment buildings. the two-story over raised basement single family subject house currently features a one story over raised basement extension that extends almost 30 feet from the building's main rear wall and occupies approximately half the lot width. the project would remove the rear most 20 feet of the extension's first floor and replace it with a deck approximately 6'6" above the rear yard. the project also includes an approximately 10-foot, one story
over a raised basement extension from the building's main rear wall with a deck proposed above this at the second story. the d.r. requester is gregory leon, son of the owner of 50 palm avenue, a three-story, five-unit apartment building located immediately to the rear of the subject property. the d.r. requieter's certain is the effect of the project's second story deck on privacy in three of the apartment building's unit. the new deck would be 45 feet away from the rear property line and the apartment building's rear wall is 15 feet away from its rear property line so a total of 60 feet between the two buildings. the residential design team reviewed the project and concluded that the project appropriately reduces the building's existing massing at the rear. the rdt found the project would not adversely affect the d.r. requester's rear yard in terms
of privacy. the recommendation that the project be approved as proposed. president fong: g.r. requester, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm greg leon, the landlord's son and i'm a concerned individual and i also have tenants up in arms and concerned about their privacy into their bedrooms, more specifically, from 55 jordan's second floor deck. i called the architect, yakov askew and he made it clear he didn't want to talk to me about the project and made it clear that he didn't want to put me in touch with his clients. when the plans were originally submitted, there was a large tree on the property abutting the property line. that was blown down in a recent windstorm. it screened both our properties. a few photos.
first photo is a vantage point from the third floor bedroom. second photo is from the first floor bedroom. and this last photo is from the ground floor bedroom. bedrooms on the second floor, first floor and ground floor will lose their privacy to this deck as well as a rear yard. we have a postage size yard 12 feet deep roughly and planting a tall tree to screen first and second floors is not feasible. i am simply suggesting that the proposed three to four-foot solid handrail be added,
tempered opaque glass screen above it a total of seven feet so they maintain their privacy and our tenants maintain theirs. thank you. president fong: are there any speakers in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm yako askew, architect representing our client, taylor walker, jane timberlake and their three children hoping to relocate to this residence. i'd like to thank you guys for agreeing to hear this tonight as i know you are trying to continue most of these items. i'd like to turn your attention to the first couple of pages in the booklet we've prepared for you. we have letters of support from both adjacent neighbors. we worked with both of them and met with both of them at several
meetings to talk about concerns with privacy because we are proposing to do a deck on the -- above the first floor, which is -- goes beyond most adjacent properties so we wanted to make sure any privacy issues were being mitigated with the neighbors. they're both supportive of our proposals and we've included those letters in there. i think -- how do i get this to turn on? >> it's on. >> i think this speaks volumes to what the -- what the lack of concern, i believe, is, for the merits of this d.r. requester. the deck we are proposing, as mr. lindsey pointed out, is 45 feet from the rear property
line. our proposal is to reduce the overall mass of our building. the d.r. requester's building is the largest building on the block. it's the largest building within the immediate context and has a rear yard of only 15 feet. if there's a building providing privacy concerns, i think it's that building at 50 palm, not at 55 jordan. this is a photograph from the rear yard of 55 jordan with the invasive privacy that my client has to live with. but just to address it numerically, as well, this is the existing elevation of the building where we're actually showing about 115 square feet of window openings on the floor that the d.r. requester is concerned with, and on the following page, we're actually showing that with the new guardrail we're proposing, up to
42 inches, we're reducing the amount of glazing that is visible from 50 palm to our building at 55 jordan. and i'm available for any questions if you have any. thanks very much. president fong: thank you. are there any speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is taylor walker. my wife and i own the property at 55 jordan that we are trying to remodel. i just wanted to amplify what our architect said. we've worked very hard with the neighbors to ensure that the massing in scale of what we are trying to do in our rear yard is appropriate and neighbor-friendly. quite contrary to what the d.r. requester said, he called us with an ultimatum the day before he was going out of town for two
weeks and said that if we didn't agree to raise the wall from approximately four feet up to nine feet, he would file a petition. so there was no effort on his part to make any sort of outreach to us. we, in effect, were threatened with this process. we believe, if you take a look at the notes, that we are reducing the glazing and also the footprint of the house and we hope to live in this house for many years and to be good neighbors to all around us. thank you very much. president fong: d.r. requester, is there any other public comment in favor of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have rebuttal of two minutes. >> this was no threat that was made to this gentleman. i was going out of town and i
suggested that we talk and the architect did not put me in touch with them so i said i would file a petition and there i did. thank you. president fong: project sponsor? you have a rebuttal opportunity. hearing is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i find the proposed alteration completely within means that is modest and does not raise even a discussion in the scope. i think it is, what do we say, not exception nor extraordinary. i find it actually commendable because i feel since the architect is respecting the largeness of the other building and responds to it by retracting. we hear that hardly ever and i
find the response appropriate and move to approve. >> second. president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i had the occasion to go by there last sunday night. i have a relative in the general vicinity and after visiting her i thought i might as well go see it and it happened that the next door neighbors at 47 jordan were out in front and they showed me and i could see exactly see what was happening and because these homes were built around 1914 or in that period, there weren't too many rear yard assurances that were in place during a long period of time after they were built and as a result, some of the houses extend quite a ways out and actually by cutting the second floor of an extension that goes not too far into the rear yard but they actually bring this back and open up the space for the neighbors on both sides, so i think it's a commendable change and i think the distance away from the palm
street properties is quite aways and i can't see where a privacy issue would be involved here so i don't see anything extraordinary or unusual in this case. president fong: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i have a quick question for the d.r. requester if you could come to the mic. did i hear you right in your testimony that you said the concern was with the second floor deck? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: ok. thank you. i thought that was the case. just an observation, i guess. that deck comes off the master bedroom so i think it would be used mainly for family affairs and possibly even just the owners of the house and it isn't the deck that would -- wouldn't be a deck that would be used for things like parties and things, i don't imagine. so -- secretary: commissioners, the motion on the floor is to not
take discretionary review and approve the project. [roll call vote was taken] secretary: thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. we'll return to item no. 5 on your calendar. the informational presentation on the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study. >> good afternoon, commissioners. secretary: i can turn that one on. hold on just a moment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, tim pappendrao, deputy director of planning and streets. i'm giving you a note on where
we are with the eastern neighborhoods en trips project and next steps, as well, moving forward. so where we are right now is we just went through the fairly lengthy process of trying to coordinate and prioritize transportation corridors for literally what comes to a third of the city. i think this was a very large endeavor, a very ambitious effort by the city to take this on. nevertheless, the eastern neighborhoods area plan came up with its recommendations and the m.t.a. was tasked to develop the transportation supporting measures to underpin the decisions approved by this commission a little while back. we went through this process of going through the existing conditions and future conditions looking at the land use growth assumptions that were approved by this commission and the regional growth that would be
happening in the background and then really took a look at what could happen in these corridors and how we could move forward in a way that was meeting the majority of our goals in the city. this two-year process included extensive community outreach and community feedback. there was a lot of opinions on what could happen on these corridors and on these streets and which streets should go first and which should go second. we went through an extensionive prioritization process where we narrowed down three major corridors of focus and those three corridors are 16th street, folom street and howard street considered as a pair and seventh and eighth street considered as a pair, as well. i'll walk through those right now. so in the orange, the second corridor of 2012, we finished the report and we're at the process now of defining the projects for the next phase which would be the environmental
phase. one of the projects which i'll go into is 16th street. we were very opportunistic working with the transit effectiveness project to fold that project description into the t.p. environmental so that's already out of the gate as we say. it's out of the gate. so the three project areas were the folsom howard pair from 5th street to 11th street. we chose this segment because from our analysis this was a segment that needed a lot of work and it also had the most similarities in terms of its characteristics on the corridor. we also chose the seventh and eighth street couplet from market street harrison, having very similar issues there, and then 16th street we looked at basically from church street to third street. the initial segment was from patrarra to seventh but we realized we had to extend it further out. on the transportation street scape improvements for 16th
street, we looked at nine alternatives. looking at different ways we could move the people movement through that corridor. what obviously popped out which we all knew is that this is a transit street and needs to act like a transit street and within the t.e.p., it's a rapid, rapid corridor, it's part of the rapid network so we chose an alternative that basically put the transit first, adhering to our city policy, and making sure the transit improvements really repeated underpinned by the efforts undertaken in this corridor. we also look at the opportunity for extending the bike facilities and looking at other opportunities there but the one recommendation we focused on was on the median, creating a median transit service similar to a b.r.t., bus rapid transit, project. this is what it would look like. we have the extensive report and will be uploading it on the
planning city department's website very soon. we're tweaking some things so we haven't got the report to hand to you in a hard copy yet but what we have right here is the decision for each of these alternatives. they're in the conceptual phase right now. they need to be described to go into environmental. 16th street is the furthest along where we describe the project. we would basically use the existing right-of-way to create a median center operating bus transit service and having transit boarding islands and various measures throughout the corridor. there would be elements where we would widen sidewalks on certain segments and put in bus bulbs and one of the key measures for pedestrian safety, would shorten the crossing distance on 16th street for the area and it's response to the growth that's going to be happening along the corridor. there will be parking removal.
but in a limited right-of-way, there's only certain amount of things you can do. this is the recommended alternative going through the environmental analysis and we'll do the environmental assessment for that. the second corridor is folsom and howard streets. this was the -- i would say the most challenging one because there were so many opinions of what we should and could do in this corridor. we looked at various improvements ranging from one-way options where we would widen the sidewalks and reduce the number of travel lanes, really trying to traffic. we heard a lot from the community. certain parts of the community wanted it two-way, other parts wanted widened sidewalks, some wanted protected bus facilities and some wanted bus lanes. within a limited right-of-way we had, we came up with nine potential opportunities. the one-way alternatives would have reduced travel speeds. the lights would be
resynchronized to reduce travel speeds. they would have shortened crossing distances and meet the criteria of the better streets plan policies with wider sidewalks. the two-way alternative accommodates everybody's needs but it doesn't widen the sidewalks and it only creates spot improvements where there would be bus boarding islands or the added crossing space from protected bicycle lanes. so these are the recommended concept and what it would do is for howard, it would create medians that would basically channelize the street creating two-way opportunities and for folsom street, there would be two lanes in one direction, one lane going in the other direction so we could keep that two-way concept that the community wants and then what that would do, it would allow for all of the transit to stay on one street, so for transit legibility purposes, this would
score very well. a lot of the community wanted to have their transit in both directions on one street and this would achieve that. also, what this would do, it would create an opportunity for a cycle tracker, a protected bicycle facility, whether it's two-way or one-way, right now, we're still defining it, because there are things that are new from a federal standard guideline that we haven't approved yet. what we're doing with folsom and howard, we're working with the city staff right now. all the city staff to help define this alternative a little bit more. this is the concept that came out from the project report. looking at ways we can include wider sidewalks, one-way cycle tracks so we're actually conforming to our existing comfort of innovation, let's put it that way. and then getting this ready for environmental clearance which is an opportunity we're looking at for these two corridors with the city staff.
on folsom street on, transit services, this gave us an opportunity to work with the transit side of the m.t.a. and as part of the t.e.p., there is a proposal that we could actually realign the 27 service which runs on bryant and harrison and move it up to folsom to improve more transit service because the community wanted more transit service and then renaming the 12 service right now that does a one-way couplet, to the 11, and meeting a lot of the needs that the community raised about right now the folsom service goes from one end to another end and doesn't connect anything and an opportunity we have is with introducing a new line, line 11 downtown connector, would connect the venice metro station along 10th street up folsom street and back to the montgomery street station. that makes a lot of